If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Crazy kid, it's in your profile for everyone to see.
And to think I was going to hire you for a spying job!

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyesAnd clever in their own sight! Isaiah 5:20-21 NASB

since Paul most likely wont win the primary, i'd vote for Cain. the Dems wouldn't know what to do, because their most powerful weapon, the race card, would be rendered useless.

although one thing i don't like is he supports is bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. i don't say we should tax the rich more, but we should at least be taxing them the same as everyone else.

they went from 31% to 35% under the Bush tax cuts

"Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry

mmmm.....maybe it's the % of Revenue that they pay went up....Rush has it on his website...

"Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry

"Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry

This is funny math. The rich do pay a larger share of the total tax revenue because they have an extremely high portion of the pie to begin with. Even if it's totally skewed in favor or the top 2 percent it will still appear that they are the victims with this statistic.

Let me give you a very rough example: We have 100 people

You have 98 people making $100. Their tax rate is set at 50%.

You also have 2 people making $10,000, their tax rate is set at 25%

In this example, 98% of the population makes little money and they are taxed at TWICE the rate of the top 2%. However, let's look at the total share of taxes:

We end up with $9,900 in total tax revenue, with $5,000 of that being paid by the top 2%. Oh my god, only 2% of the population is paying for OVER HALF of all taxes. That's totally unfair I guess we should lower their tax rate?

Numbers are very easily to manipulate, be careful. Obviously the real life situation is a little more complex than this, but this demonstrates how using the same statistical measure rush quoted there is misleading.

Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

This is funny math. The rich do pay a larger share of the total tax revenue because they have an extremely high portion of the pie to begin with. Even if it's totally skewed in favor or the top 2 percent it will still appear that they are the victims with this statistic.

Let me give you a very rough example: We have 100 people

You have 98 people making $100. Their tax rate is set at 50%.

You also have 2 people making $10,000, their tax rate is set at 25%

In this example, 98% of the population makes little money and they are taxed at TWICE the rate of the top 2%. However, let's look at the total share of taxes:

We end up with $9,900 in total tax revenue, with $5,000 of that being paid by the top 2%. Oh my god, only 2% of the population is paying for OVER HALF of all taxes. That's totally unfair I guess we should lower their tax rate?

Numbers are very easily to manipulate, be careful. Obviously the real life situation is a little more complex than this, but this demonstrates how using the same statistical measure rush quoted there is misleading.

except you would have to completely change your numbers to even FIT with reality.

we will make this easy and say that the total hypothetical taxes are $100,000 (just to make it easy)

50 people pay in a total of $3,460 or 3.46% of the total bill ($69.2/person)

of the 50 remaining who pay the rest of the $96,540

top 5 pay $54,360 ($10,872/person)

the next 5 pay $11,480 (2,296/person)

the rest (40 people) pay $30,700 (767.5/person)

so the burden to pay that $100k is on the top 5 people, now if we could shift it so that more people from the lower come up to the higher brackets by cutting the % that the top 10 people pay who then create more jobs for those bottom 50 or better yet make it so it's easier for those bottom 50 people to start their own companies to move up into the top 50 which in turn make it easier for them to hire people from below them than the % of taxes gets spread around more evenly between more people.

"Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry